Our genes have long been ballyhooed as either a death-sentence, or the Midas touch of genius, bestowing upon us pristine health and an agile mind, or the deterministic outcome of cancer, neurological disease, or various other birth ‘defects’, but what if there was something else helping to determine our fate? What if our genes were merely building blocks, and a greater intelligence was in charge of whether or not we can throw a basketball from the free throw line and get nothing but net every time, or die at the age of 46 like every other person in our family’s history, due to a genetic predisposition for cardiac arrest?
Genetic determinism is the idea that genes, to the exclusion of environment or the field of our awareness and experience, determine how an organism turns out. You could call it the extreme version of nature vs. nurture, wherein our DNA tells us everything about what something will be.
The aforementioned idea decides that generational programming accounts for everything. We’ve become so obsessed with genes, in fact, that we test for everything – from BRAC1 and BRAC2 genes for breast or ovarian cancer, to simply testing our DNA for clues into our ancestral roots. It isn’t as though this information isn’t useful, or even fun, but it can be deceptively limiting. While we can learn if our great-great grandparents were likely to fish or have red hair, we can also find less savory ‘genes’ that foreshadow more somber outcomes.
One of the biggest intellectual roadblocks to overcome in healing ourselves, or even understanding the Universe fully, is based on this assumption: that our genes determine our reality, or the likelihood our lives and health will follow a predetermined path. This assumption is based on yet another erroneous fallacy – that we are just a combination of mechanical, chemical, and hormonal interactions – what Newtonian science would call ‘modern medicine.’ Even after mapping out 3.2 billion base pairs of DNA in the human genome project, we were no closer to figuring out how to heal aberrant DNA for one reason. While many scientists were looking at the four single letters in a protein recipe and how they carry out bodily functions, they forgot to make room for consciousness.
Instead of our lives being determined by our genes, they are more likely determined by what science now calls epigenetics. Our genes grow in a soup of resonant fields created by thoughts and intentions. Rupert Sheldrake, the noted biologist and author of over 80 scientific papers on the subject has been railing against main stream science trying to break through its dogma on the subject for decades:
“Morphic resonance is a process whereby self-organising systems inherit a memory from previous similar systems. In its most general formulation, morphic resonance means that the so-called laws of nature are more like habits. The hypothesis of morphic resonance also leads to a radically new interpretation of memory storage in the brain and of biological inheritance. Memory need not be stored in material traces inside brains, which are more like TV receivers than video recorders, tuning into influences from the past. And biological inheritance need not all be coded in the genes, or in epigenetic modifications of the genes; much of it depends on morphic resonance from previous members of the species. Thus each individual inherits a collective memory from past members of the species, and also contributes to the collective memory, affecting other members of the species in the future.” – Rupert Sheldrake
Sheldrake calls this field, ‘the extended mind’. He has defended his theory over and over again from people who call him a crackpot or a whack job. His latest book, Science Set Free discusses his theory to great extent, but for now, we can discuss it summarily.
Dr. Bruce Lipton, a controversial biologist, has pointed out that one set of gene blueprints can result in over 30,000 different possible outcomes. In multiple adoption studies conducted in the 1880s and 1990s it was found that children in the same family have an important causal role in gene expression, regardless of their biological origins.
Researchers found that even children who did not have particular gene combinations that would predispose them to certain types of cancer, but were adopted into families that had attitudes or prevalent emotions that resulted in this health outcome – also often developed the same cancers as their host families did. Social context also played a significant role in whether these adopted children developed a disease. It was surprisingly uncommon for the genes themselves to play out deterministic health scenarios.
Genes are not locked into a specific code. Gene activity, can change on a daily basis, and does. The heretofore accepted scientific paradigm of genetic determinacy is being turned on its head. As Lipton explains in a lecture:
“The name protein means “primary element” (proteios, Gr.) for proteins are the primary components of all plant and animal cells. A human is made of ~100,000 different proteins. Proteins are linear “chains,” whose molecular “links” are comprised of amino acid molecules. Each of the 20 different amino acids has a unique shape, so that when linked together in a chain, the resulting proteins fold into elaborate 3-dimensional “wire sculptures.” The protein sculpture’s pattern is determined by the sequence of its amino acid links. The balancing of electromagnetic charges along the protein’s chain serves to control the “final” shape of the sculpture. The unique shape of a protein sculpture is referred to as its “conformation.” In the manner of a lock and key, protein sculptures compliment the shape of environmental molecules (which include other proteins). When proteins interlock with the complementary environmental molecules, they assemble into complex structures (similar to the way cogged “gears” intermesh to make a watch).” -Dr. Bruce Lipton
This and other discoveries made in the last hundred years have allowed scientists willing to go against mainstream to understand that the ‘primary components’ of life are still orchestrated by something more.
The morphic resonance theory postulates that we are bound together even though we appear separate, and it is in this field that communication (among cells, DNA, particles, etc.) takes place. While Newtonian science explained the theory of gravitation, outlining the invisible force which holds all things together, the same scientific reasoning also tended to divide everything into separate, mechanistic, material categories. Why is an apple different than a tomato, or a bee different from a persimmon flower? How does the DNA know to make a tree or an ant? A human being or a salamander?
The word ‘morphic’ comes from the Greek meaning ‘form’ and the morphogentic field determines how things take form. It doesn’t just organize living things, but also inanimate, non-sentient matter. While genes play an important part in organizing us into things, they don’t explain how the organization itself happens. After all, apes and humans, fruit flies and worms are all very similar, genetically. The theory of morphogenesis supposes that something imposes a pattern of organization on a field – producing specific outcomes in matter. These fields are not fixed, they evolve. This is part of the reason you can see a child that doesn’t have cancer in her genes, end up developing cancer when she is exposed to a ‘field’ which consistently creates the disease. It is also why some people with cancer-causing genes don’t get cancer at all. Sheldrake thinks these messages in the field are passed down through a ‘non-local’ resonance, but ancients called this consciousness.
In another interesting experiment conducted recently, two bilaterally symmetric eyes arise from the anterior neural plate in vertebrate embryos. Thos poses an interesting question – did both eyes share a common developmental origin or did they originate separately. Does all of nature spring forward in a Big Bang moment, or does it exist as merely a possibility in a metaphysical realm waiting to become ‘real.’
Whatever is discovered to be the underlying cause, or pattern of development, it has been noted that morphic fields of social groups connect group members, even when they are far away, and provide channels of communication through which organisms can communicate at a distance, affecting the genome. This is also the foundation of distance healing, and may even possibly explain how entire forests communicate beyond the network of fungi found on a forest floor. In more than 61 studies on distance healing along with 120 additional randomized controlled studies involving thousands of miles of geographic distance, DNA changes, and spontaneous healings occurred repeatedly.
It turns out that our DNA code is fixed for life, but the epigenome is flexible. Epigenomes react to signals from the outside world, such as diet and stress. Even in differentiated cells, signals fine-tune cell functions through changes in gene expression. A flexible epigenome allows us to adjust to changes in the world around us, and to learn from our experiences. This happens both singularly and collectively.
Epigenome signaling can happen from inside a cell, from neighboring cells, or from the environment entirely outside the cell.
- In early life, our mother’s nutrition and state of mind helps to develop the epigenome. If she is flooded with stress hormones, or eats lots of kale and spinach, this will affect the genes.
- As life continues, a wider variety of environmental influences shape the epigenome, from social interactions, physical activity, diet and emotional reactions to stimulus.
- Progressing into old age, and throughout life, epigenomic activity is triggered by what is happening in the outside world, shutting down or activating certain sets of gene.
Changing the Mind to Change Genetic Structures
As billions of dollars are poured into genetic research, and the genetic alteration of everything from mosquitoes to bananas to people – are we missing something? If genes are not deterministic at all, and we can change what we become through prayer, mediation, distance healing, intention, etc. then why are we wasting so much energy and time on dissecting the mere building blocks themselves?
Even our memories are not contained within the ‘structure’ of our brains. Biochemists aren’t so interested in this idea, but philosophers and physics geniuses are. The genes of your arm bones and your big toe are made from the same cells, in fact. Some cells simply turn into an arm and the other a leg, depending on what is called for in the creation of ‘you.’ When the Humane Genome Project was launched, scientists expected to find that we had hundreds of thousands of genes, but it turns out we have only around twenty-three thousand – this means genes are the end all, be all of our mental, physical, or psychological makeup. A sea-urchin has twenty-six thousand genes and rice has thirty-eight thousand genes. That’s quite a slap in the face to any deterministic stance. Geneticists, like biotech keep begging for more time to figure it out, but they are like children playing with wooden blocks, trying to build the Taj Mahal.
If genes are, in fact, deterministic, then how can distance healers mitigate complications with heart bypass patients simply through sending them prayerful healing? How can the myriad other studies showing similar outcomes be ignored. They can’t but mainstream science simply does, because they have left out a primary component to the Universal design – spirit. Our intentions, our beliefs, and our ‘higher selves’ or spirits have their own programming, too. Science simply does not yet understand how this works – not even at the quantum level.
In times like these, when we are bombarded with news of nanobots being injected into our bodies via aerosol particles from chemtrails, genetically modified foods are being forced down our gullets by devilish multinational corporations, our weather and ionosphere is being manipulated by technologies like HAARP, and our ‘shadow-government’ increasingly ignores the needs of the masses, while the proletariat slaves away for some unknown master, it behooves us to realize that even our own bodies can be changed with thoughts, intention, and an elevation of consciousness.
If Carl Jung even believed memory could survive the death of the brain and was stored in something akin to the Akashic records, then this means, we all have the innate wisdom to overcome anything. In theories of the multiverse, we are more than even one physical entity – this certainly could not be so if we were relegated to one set of deterministic outcomes based on genetic coding.
Simple practices like meditation change gene expression.
“After 8 hours, the meditators [in a study published in the journal Psychoneuroendocrinology] showed a range of genetic and molecular differences, including reduced levels of pro-inflammatory genes. This correlates with faster physical recovery from a stressful situation.”
Music can also change the genetic structures of the brain. Interesting questions begin to arise from researchers who are used to looking at the human being through a deterministic lense:
“There are now over 100 music neuroimaging studies from which it is clear that the brains of musicians and nonmusicians differ. These relate to size, morphology, density, connectivity, and function that occur throughout the brain and support a range of cognitive processes that are often improved in musicians. As we move forward, a challenge for research is to address the causal direction of these differences. Does becoming a musician cause the brain to change, or do musicians have different brains to begin with?”
The Monroe Institute has shown how thought can cause molecular changes to our genes, repeatedly. We can’t change the genotype but gene expression is mediated by the choices that we make and the behaviors we choose, which all arise from thought. Thought, in a purely Newtonian aspect, is merely a neurochemical process regulated by changes of membrane electric potentials and, respectively, changes of concentrations of neurotransmitters, neuromodulators and neurohormones – these surely affect how we act – just ask someone who is chronically depressed, or someone who has an abundance of seratonin circulating in their bodies. Their lives will be markedly different.
Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz has also shown that sound vibrations change genetic make-up. 528 Hz has the ability to heal DNA. Most of us are subjected to the “Equal Temperament Scale” (440 Hz) without realizing it, which was devised about 200 years ago to overcome difficulties in tuning and it has been used ever since. The International Standards Organization (ISO) endorsed 440Hz in 1953, but the more natural harmonics of 432 Hz is better for our bodies and minds. Some intelligent individuals swayed form that path though, and even some famous musicians returned to a more naturally harmonic frequency to tune their instruments for recordings. Bob Marley is one of them, with his recording of ‘”One Love.”
There is also a theory that Nazi propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, dictated the change from 432 Hz to 440 Hz to alter people’s behavior and make them more compliant, but once one starts to research healing harmonics, the impetus is once again in their hands to change their environments, their minds, and thus their genes.
Our DNA may be under attack by the government, and have a history of forced alteration, but the biggest weapon we have is our own conscious awareness, and the ability to choose a different path. There is no deterministic outcome, just what we are determined to do about things as they are now.
About the Author:
Christina Sarich is a musician, yogi, humanitarian and freelance writer who channels many hours of studying Lao Tzu, Paramahansa Yogananda, Rob Brezny, Miles Davis, and Tom Robbins into interesting tidbits to help you Wake up Your Sleepy Little Head, and *See the Big Picture*. Her blog is Yoga for the New World . Her latest book is Pharma Sutra: Healing The Body And Mind Through The Art Of Yoga.
Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the copyright act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as critisicm, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statue that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of IEMI or its staff.